PROSPECTS FOR PEACE BETWEEN ISRAELIS AND THE PALESTINIANS OF THE GAZA STRIP
The State of Current Peace Talks and negotiations
The peace framework that has been adopted by US President Barack Obama and acknowledged by many other world-wide leaders, including those in Israel and Gaza, is one based around a “two-state solution” and any peace negotiations are focused towards this end.[1]
Both Israel and Palestine have failed to comply with the agreements outlined in the Oslo Accords and subsequent summits. Obama has decided that the best way to put the two states back on track for a peaceful two-state solution and resolution is by facilitating indirect peace talks between them. Mahmoud Abbas however, as chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, suspended these negotiations in March of 2010 after Israel released a settlement plan for 1600 residencies in East Jerusalem.[2] Obama and Abbas reacted to Israel’s plans by demanding that Israel freeze these settlements. Israel has not taken kindly to Obama’s “ultimatum” and refuses to halt settlements on the basis that while they are willing to make concessions by opening up the issue of Jerusalem for negotiation, Palestine is making no concessions and is instead making demands on Israel.[3] The frustrating lack of progress here has led Obama to set a deadline for resumed peace talks at the autumn of 2010, by which time Israel and Palestine must have resumed peace talks, or else the US will set forward its own plan for peace between the states.
Obama’s appeals to and dealings with Palestine are entirely directed at the PLO, as the US does not officially recognize the Hamas government in the Gaza. This means Hamas is ultimately sidelined from these peace talks. Therefore any negotiations that are made between the PLO and Israel do not necessarily assure the compliance of
Hamas. This further complicates the already strained peace process.
Current Issues Affecting a Resolution
There are numerous issues that are seen as contributing to the conflict in the Gaza and therefore providing possible hindrances to a resolution. Some of the major issues are as follows:
Mutual Recognition
Both parties still refuse to formally recognise one another, despite growing public opinion within Israel which is pushing for the government to start
negotiating with Hamas.[4]This lack of recognition between the parties creates distrust and makes formal peace processes extremely difficult. The failure of other states to recognise Hamas also contributes to these difficulties. In contrast to recognition, it has been argued that the dismantling of both Hamas and Fatah, is the only means to ending the tensions within the Gaza and the distrust that Israel has of the Gaza authorities.[5]
International Compliance and Accountability
Both Israel and Palestine point to each other as breaching International standards and agreements, however the two states appear to value different International standards over others, depending on their particular interests.
Israel points mainly to Hamas and its terrorist orientation as responsible for the breaking of International Human rights standards against terrorism.[6] Meanwhile, Palestine points to factors such as Israel’s violation of warfare standards and disproportionate use of force, as well as Israel’s large role in the disintegration of health, economic and security standards within Gaza. Both sides point to each other as violating settlement agreements.Concerted efforts to obey International standards are required in order for trust to develop between the two parties. Many observers of the conflict argue, for different reasons and with different intentions, that increased accountability for the violation of international guidelines will help to establish a more stabilised environment in which to foster peace.[7]
Divided Cabinets
Both the Israeli and Gaza authorities are in a state of political divide over the issue of how to handle Palestinian terrorist threats.
The political situation within the Gaza is highly unstable due to the feuding between Fatah, Hamas and other political groups. Such a state of instability has meant that Hamas has been forced to focus much of its attention on maintaining its own personal power, rather than reaching agreements with Israel.
In Israel, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s decision to form a coalition between his Likud party and Ehud Barak’s Labour party became the source of much divide within both parties.[8] It could be argued that this division weakens the government in a way that is not helpful to producing consistent decisions over the Gaza, thereby complicating the peace process. This has also, however been seen as a form of stability in that it provides a more balanced ideological approach on behalf of the government.[9]
Stalemate
As the current settlement disputes illustrate, neither Israel nor Palestine are willing to make concessions without being assured that the other will also. This reflects the realist perspective of International relations whereby a state will refrain from undertaking an action towards long term peace if it puts it at a perceived disadvantage compared to another state. The US is particularly agitated by this, and has urged both parties to make concessions with the belief that without such concessions, a peace solution will not be reached
Weapon control and Stability within the Gaza
Israeli ministers observed after the fighting in March of this year that Hamas is increasingly unable to control when and how attacks are made on Israel by its own and other militant factions.[10] Although Hamas is still linked to frequent attacks on Israel, those attacks which its ministers are unaware of are of great concern to Israel’s security and may serve to devalue any peace agreements that Hamas does attempt to make with Israel. Weapons control has been a central item on the Israeli security agenda that needs to be dealt with in order to ease Israeli anxiety and move towards trust.
The Role of International Actors
There are many different views on the level to which the roles and decisions of International actors sustain and contribute to the conflict in the Gaza strip.
Palestinians in the Gaza strip are particularly resentful of what they see as a US-led bias towards Israel and against Palestine. Many Palestinians believe that the US protects Israel within the UN from sanctions and criticisms regarding its human rights violations in the Gaza.[11] The decision of the European Union and the US to attempt to remove Hamas from power after its 2006 election win has been interpreted by many living in the Gaza, and by Hamas itself as unwanted interference and an illegitimate violation of Hamas’ democratic right to rule. These ideas form the basis behind extremist Islamic groups who believe that the US-led western world and its International Institutions such as the UN are out to “destroy Islam.” Some of these groups on the other hand, demand further involvement of states like the US in Arab-Israeli affairs, in particular, in ensuring Israel’s international accountability.
In contrast, Israel has tended to be very sensitive to international criticisms, seeing institutions like the United Nations as largely anti-Israeli and/or anti-Semitic.[12] Israel often demands that states interfere less with what they call their right to self-defense from attacks from the Gaza.[13] It is clear that particular moves made by International actors have the potential to contribute to and sustain the conflict in the Gaza Strip.
Barak Obama with Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at a trilateral meeting in New York on the 22nd of September 2009, photo by Kevin Lamarque
Health and Human Rights standards within the Gaza
The current welfare levels in Gaza are well below world standards (see Impact on Citizens and Soldiers.) This is a major sustaining factor in feelings of injustice and resentment within the Gaza. Palestinians have argued that Israel is to blame for the current state of the Gaza strip. They point to Israel because, a) Israel have continually violated International Human Rights standards in its dealings with the Gaza,[14] and b) such violations, as well as stringent military control of Gaza borders have been a major contributor to socio-economic disintegration in the area.[15] The main problem here is that Israel’s claimed reason for such stringent control over the Gaza is its fear of Hamas as a genuine security threat. It believes that if the Gaza and Hamas were allowed to prosper, it would use its newfound wealth to attack Israel.[16] This does not however, explain the wide International criticisms made of Israel for what has been seen as its largely excessive and disproportionate control of Gaza borders and use of force against the Gaza in its “war on terror.”
PROSPECTS FOR PEACE WITHIN THE GAZA STRIP
Hamas and Fatah The conflict in the Gaza is not only fought between differences between Israel and Palestine, with the assistance of the international community, but wider tension exists due to a failure to resolve differences internally, within the Gaza. The differences between the two main Palestinian political factions, Hamas and Fatah are not religious, like the tension which exists between Israel and Palestine, but rather Ideological clashes in objectives.[17] (17)Conflict is dominated by a failure to agree on terms of governance within Palestine, as stands from August, the territories are split into two different factions: The Hamas controlled Gaza Strip and the Fatah controlled West Bank. Religion, in this instance is not a factor which divides Fatah and Hamas; rather it is once, which despite ideological differences could lead to a unity based upon similar religious belief.[18] (17) Both Hamas and Fatah are, like most Palestinians followers of the Sunni branch of Islam, they both included in their original charters a call for “the end of the Zionist presence”,[19] (18) Fatah supports the two state solution which would lead to the creation of an Israeli state and a Palestinian state comprising of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and some of Jerusalem.[20] (18) The faction claims to be against armed resistance; however the group still maintains association with armed militant factions. Hamas’s Islamic credo states ignores peaceful alternatives to the conflict claiming that any move towards international peace negotiations and conferences which discuss peaceful coexistence with Israel would be a mark against Islam. Hamas’s Loyalty towards Islam is reflected in their founding document, Article 6 of their charter which states: “The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian Movement which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam, its way of life and strives to maintain the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”[21] (19) this view is less moderate than Fatah; however their religious beliefs are what units them, what divides them is however their territorial claims over Jerusalem. Hamas made it clear their objective is to “obliterate Israel” and requests the creation of a Palestinian state which encompasses the whole of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the whole of Jerusalem.[22] (19) Since, Hamas have become more moderate in their views, claiming that they were open to a long term truce with Israel, if the pre 1967 lines are reinstated and Israel allows the a Palestinian state to emerge. Prospects that these two groups could work together as a sole governing body have been explored in February 2007, when a unity government, in Mecca, under the sponsorship of Saudi Arabian King Abdullah this lead to factional fighting which Culminated in the Battle of Gaza.[23] (19) This unity was based on religion these factions can come together in a unity based on religious similarities, only if these similarities can outweigh ideological differences which could lead to a possible solution to the internal factional violence which exists within the Gaza.
The remains of the house where Jamal Abu al-Jadian, leader of the fatah affiliated al-Aqsa brigade, was gunned down on June 12th 2007
Creating a Moderate Hamas This kind of solution where a joint Palestinian government is created on the grounds of similarities of religion can only be created if Hamas moderate their political stance which would remove the ideological difference between the factional groups. Political optimists argue that Hamas’s involvement in Palestinian politics would help them to moderate their political stance in order to maximize votes, however the prospects remain bleak, their use of violence and political aggression against Israel, their private army, “Al-Qassam Brigade”[24] (20) and engagement with terrorist groups such as Islamic Jihad movement engaging in attacks against Israel involving launching of rockets from the Gaza into Israel, only serve to heighten tension and remove the chances for a peaceful coexistence.[25] (20) Hamas has been declared in January, 2006, to be on the list of terrorist groups by the United States, Israel and the EU.[26] (21)This increases international sentiment that Hamas is a dangerous destructive terrorist group which cannot be moderated by any means. There is difficulty engaging with Hamas on an international level, however, regional engagement with Hamas, using religion as a means, could be an option which could increase prospects for resolution and decrease Hamas’s use of political violence.[27] (21)
Points of Friction: Hindrances to the conflict
Internal Palestinian factions in the Gaza engaging in/ with terrorist organizations/activities are a major hindrance to finding a peaceful solution in to the conflict in the Gaza. A recent meeting between Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for Palestinian Liberation met to discuss the prospects for inter-Palestinian reconciliation. Hamas spokesperson articulated that the meeting was the first of a series of talks which would lead to the removal of the blockade and Israeli aggression.[28] (19) The aggression which exists within Palestine was reported to have taken measures to temporarily cease launching rockets at Israel, measure said to have been taken by Islamic Jihadist movement.[29] (19)This was in favor of improving the situation in Gaza; however the leaders of terrorist groups carrying out the attacks against Israel maintained the view that so long as there is Israeli aggression, such acts of terrorism remains a Palestinian right. It is a shared view amongst radical Palestinian terrorist factions that “popular resistance” in the form of riots is not as effective as terrorism. While this view remains the anti-Israeli sentiment and hatred intensifies making a resolution harder to come by.[30] (18) No amount of meetings and ceasefires would change such a view, it would only be removed if Israeli aggression would stop and while neither side would be wiling to give up their stance and aggression the problem will only continue to escalate.
Regional Defense analysts have warned that there is a danger of war with Israel due to joint militant alliance between Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza being supplied with ordinance from Iran; this could only serve to intensify the conflict within the Gaza.[31] (22) The military capabilities of Hamas had increased dramatically since Iran made it a major part of their military strategy to restore Hamas’s arsenal enabling them to target Israel from Lebanon and the Gaza. In order to do so, Iran is capitalizing on the anti-Israeli sentiment which exists most strongly within Hamas in the Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.[32] (22) This is contributing to the advancement of the Al-Qassam’s military capabilities which would lead to a more destructive and dangerous war with Israel, or civil war between the different political factions within the Gaza.[33] (22) There is also fears that the war would trigger Al-Qaeda networks in the Gaza which could gain the same military strength as the “Jihadist strongholds”[34] (22) in Yemen. The increasing terrorist networks across the Middle East and their connections with Hamas and Al-Qaeda networks across the Gaza Strip and Iran’s designs on Israel are contributing not to a peaceful resolution but creating new facets in conflict of already complex nature. The problem of terrorist networks around the world is a problem the globalised world faces and rears its head in most conflicts. Its prevalence in the Gaza Conflict lies in Hamas, the leading political faction being labeled a terrorist organization by members of the international community. So long as they are perceived as a threat, they will continue to act as one, hindering any possible solution to the Gaza Conflict.
The Role of the Media in contributing to a solution
The Media’s role in the conflict has had both a negative and positive influence on public opinion, international news coverage had presented mainly the destruction of the conflict in the interests of ratings and attracting readers and viewers, however the main positive influence the media has comes from within Palestine and Israel, in the form of Palestinian media outlet MIFTAH and Israeli Keshev.[35] (23) Palestinian media narrative emphasizes the occupation, painting a negative image of Israel as the aggressor in the conflict, responsible for the violence. The Israeli media emphasizes the violent terrorist foundations of the Palestinian conduct and their unwillingness to try and come to a solution.[36] (24) These patterns of media coverage increase mutual suspicion, which increases the tension between both sides, making a solution harder to come by. The recognition of the media’s influence has lead to the creation of the Palestinian MIFTAH and Israeli Keshev, both working together to create a joint media alliance which changes the way conflict is depicted on both sides.[37] (24) Instead of creating a version of the conflict which benefits their sides argument and thus instills negative images of the other side in civilians the organization, acknowledges the power of the media in influencing perception, which influences the outcome.[38] (24) The organizations work with the vision that fair, comprehensive coverage would result in a better reality in the outcome of the conflict. This is a positive step towards eradicating anti-Israeli/ anti-Palestinian propaganda within the media; however the sentiment still exists in other areas of Palestinian and Israeli life. The only way such hatred can be removed is if people were educated in light of peace, not hatred, the media is appealing to a wide audience and has the power to mould perception; however, children in institutions of education are being forced fed the same anti-Israeli/ anti-Palestinian propaganda as some media institutions thrive off. Once this perception is removed, the people views become less antagonistic and provided fair representation exists they have the power through public to influence the leaders who hold the ability to create the necessary change for a resolution to become feasible.
A GAZA-ISRAEL RESOLUTION?
Given the current state of negotiations and the various factors contributing to the tensions between Israel and Palestine, it is unlikely that a resolution will be found any time in, at least, the very near future. The above factors underline some of the issues and views that do and could potentially hinder the peace process.
It appears that for peace to be negotiated, both states need to be able to feel like they are not being violated by the other and that their security is not under threat. By confronting the above issues, Israel and the Palestinians of the Gaza will be able look towards developing a future environment of greater trust, and in doing so, work towards attaining a more peaceful relationship.
References
(see the comments I made in the discussion tab re references and how to use the wikipedia style footnote things :) josh)
^ For a list of speeches made by world leaders regarding the two state solution see Susab Hattis Rolef for Procon.org, June 2009, “Is a two-state solution (Israel and Palestine) an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?”, available online at http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001327.
^ Schanzer, Jonathon, 2008, “Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine", Palgrave MacMillan, New York, p.11.
^ Arieh O'Sullivan, Director of Communications at ADL's (Anti Defamation League) Israel Office in Jerusalem, 30 June 2006, “Israel’s Gaza Operation: Holding Hamas Accountable” available online at http://www.adl.org/main_Israel/Gaza_Operation.htm.
^ For example: Richard Goldstone reported for the UN after the Gaza war, stating to the Human Rights Council that 'The lack of accountability for war crimes and possible crimes against humanity has reached a crisis point; the ongoing lack of justice is undermining any hope for a successful peace process and reinforcing an environment that fosters violence.'; Dr. Aref Assaf, Arabisto, “Holding Israel Accountable”, 26 January 2009, available online at http://www.arabisto.com/article.cfm?articleID=29293; Rela Mazali, The Only Democracy.org, 11 March 2010, “New Profile, European Union Urge UN to Hold Israel Accountable”, available online at http://theonlydemocracy.org/2010/03/new-profile-urges-un-to-hold-israel-accountable/; Matthew Levitt, Director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, The Washington Institute for Near-East Policy, “Holding Hamas Accountable”, 2 January 2009, available online at http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1204.
^ Charles Levinson, The Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), “Netanyahu, Labor Set Coalition In Israel”, 25 March 2009, p.A..1.
^ See for example: Isabel Kershner, The New York Times, “Netanyahu adds Labor to Coalition in Israel”, 25 March 2009, p. A .8; Ethan Bronner, The New York Times, “Israeli officials Holding Fast to Position on Jerusalem,” 30 March 2010, p. A .6; Mazal Mualem, Nadav Shragai and Yair Ettinger, Haaretz.com, “Netanyahu: Coalition with Labor will bring Stability to Israel”, 25 March 2009, available online at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073763.html.
^ For a video montage of Human Rights accusations made on Israel see (embedded above): ‘We are Change Vancouver’, “Gaza 2009: We Will Never Forget”, 24 January 2009, available online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9mkRiGbgZg&feature=related.
PROSPECTS FOR PEACE BETWEEN ISRAELIS AND THE PALESTINIANS OF THE GAZA STRIP
The State of Current Peace Talks and negotiations
The peace framework that has been adopted by US President Barack Obama and acknowledged by many other world-wide leaders, including those in Israel and Gaza, is one based around a “two-state solution” and any peace negotiations are focused towards this end.[1]Both Israel and Palestine have failed to comply with the agreements outlined in the Oslo Accords and subsequent summits. Obama has decided that the best way to put the two states back on track for a peaceful two-state solution and resolution is by facilitating indirect peace talks between them. Mahmoud Abbas however, as chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, suspended these negotiations in March of 2010 after Israel released a settlement plan for 1600 residencies in East Jerusalem.[2] Obama and Abbas reacted to Israel’s plans by demanding that Israel freeze these settlements. Israel has not taken kindly to Obama’s “ultimatum” and refuses to halt settlements on the basis that while they are willing to make concessions by opening up the issue of Jerusalem for negotiation, Palestine is making no concessions and is instead making demands on Israel.[3] The frustrating lack of progress here has led Obama to set a deadline for resumed peace talks at the autumn of 2010, by which time Israel and Palestine must have resumed peace talks, or else the US will set forward its own plan for peace between the states.
Obama’s appeals to and dealings with Palestine are entirely directed at the PLO, as the US does not officially recognize the Hamas government in the Gaza. This means Hamas is ultimately sidelined from these peace talks. Therefore any negotiations that are made between the PLO and Israel do not necessarily assure the compliance of
Hamas. This further complicates the already strained peace process.
Current Issues Affecting a Resolution
There are numerous issues that are seen as contributing to the conflict in the Gaza and therefore providing possible hindrances to a resolution. Some of the major issues are as follows:- Mutual Recognition
Both parties still refuse to formally recognise one another, despite growing public opinion within Israel which is pushing for the government to startnegotiating with Hamas.[4] This lack of recognition between the parties creates distrust and makes formal peace processes extremely difficult. The failure of other states to recognise Hamas also contributes to these difficulties. In contrast to recognition, it has been argued that the dismantling of both Hamas and Fatah, is the only means to ending the tensions within the Gaza and the distrust that Israel has of the Gaza authorities.[5]
- International Compliance and Accountability
Both Israel and Palestine point to each other as breaching International standards and agreements, however the two states appear to value different International standards over others, depending on their particular interests.Israel points mainly to Hamas and its terrorist orientation as responsible for the breaking of International Human rights standards against terrorism.[6] Meanwhile, Palestine points to factors such as Israel’s violation of warfare standards and disproportionate use of force, as well as Israel’s large role in the disintegration of health, economic and security standards within Gaza. Both sides point to each other as violating settlement agreements.Concerted efforts to obey International standards are required in order for trust to develop between the two parties. Many observers of the conflict argue, for different reasons and with different intentions, that increased accountability for the violation of international guidelines will help to establish a more stabilised environment in which to foster peace.[7]
- Divided Cabinets
Both the Israeli and Gaza authorities are in a state of political divide over the issue of how to handle Palestinian terrorist threats.The political situation within the Gaza is highly unstable due to the feuding between Fatah, Hamas and other political groups. Such a state of instability has meant that Hamas has been forced to focus much of its attention on maintaining its own personal power, rather than reaching agreements with Israel.
In Israel, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s decision to form a coalition between his Likud party and Ehud Barak’s Labour party became the source of much divide within both parties.[8] It could be argued that this division weakens the government in a way that is not helpful to producing consistent decisions over the Gaza, thereby complicating the peace process. This has also, however been seen as a form of stability in that it provides a more balanced ideological approach on behalf of the government.[9]
- Stalemate
As the current settlement disputes illustrate, neither Israel nor Palestine are willing to make concessions without being assured that the other will also. This reflects the realist perspective of International relations whereby a state will refrain from undertaking an action towards long term peace if it puts it at a perceived disadvantage compared to another state. The US is particularly agitated by this, and has urged both parties to make concessions with the belief that without such concessions, a peace solution will not be reached- Weapon control and Stability within the Gaza
Israeli ministers observed after the fighting in March of this year that Hamas is increasingly unable to control when and how attacks are made on Israel by its own and other militant factions.[10] Although Hamas is still linked to frequent attacks on Israel, those attacks which its ministers are unaware of are of great concern to Israel’s security and may serve to devalue any peace agreements that Hamas does attempt to make with Israel. Weapons control has been a central item on the Israeli security agenda that needs to be dealt with in order to ease Israeli anxiety and move towards trust.- The Role of International Actors
There are many different views on the level to which the roles and decisions of International actors sustain and contribute to the conflict in the Gaza strip.Palestinians in the Gaza strip are particularly resentful of what they see as a US-led bias towards Israel and against Palestine. Many Palestinians believe that the US protects Israel within the UN from sanctions and criticisms regarding its human rights violations in the Gaza.[11] The decision of the European Union and the US to attempt to remove Hamas from power after its 2006 election win has been interpreted by many living in the Gaza, and by Hamas itself as unwanted interference and an illegitimate violation of Hamas’ democratic right to rule. These ideas form the basis behind extremist Islamic groups who believe that the US-led western world and its International Institutions such as the UN are out to “destroy Islam.” Some of these groups on the other hand, demand further involvement of states like the US in Arab-Israeli affairs, in particular, in ensuring Israel’s international accountability.
In contrast, Israel has tended to be very sensitive to international criticisms, seeing institutions like the United Nations as largely anti-Israeli and/or anti-Semitic.[12] Israel often demands that states interfere less with what they call their right to self-defense from attacks from the Gaza.[13] It is clear that particular moves made by International actors have the potential to contribute to and sustain the conflict in the Gaza Strip.
Barak Obama with Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at a trilateral meeting in New York on the 22nd of September 2009, photo by Kevin Lamarque
- Health and Human Rights standards within the Gaza
The current welfare levels in Gaza are well below world standards (see Impact on Citizens and Soldiers.) This is a major sustaining factor in feelings of injustice and resentment within the Gaza. Palestinians have argued that Israel is to blame for the current state of the Gaza strip. They point to Israel because, a) Israel have continually violated International Human Rights standards in its dealings with the Gaza,[14] and b) such violations, as well as stringent military control of Gaza borders have been a major contributor to socio-economic disintegration in the area.[15] The main problem here is that Israel’s claimed reason for such stringent control over the Gaza is its fear of Hamas as a genuine security threat. It believes that if the Gaza and Hamas were allowed to prosper, it would use its newfound wealth to attack Israel.[16] This does not however, explain the wide International criticisms made of Israel for what has been seen as its largely excessive and disproportionate control of Gaza borders and use of force against the Gaza in its “war on terror.”PROSPECTS FOR PEACE WITHIN THE GAZA STRIP
Hamas and Fatah
The conflict in the Gaza is not only fought between differences between Israel and Palestine, with the assistance of the international community, but wider tension exists due to a failure to resolve differences internally, within the Gaza. The differences between the two main Palestinian political factions, Hamas and Fatah are not religious, like the tension which exists between Israel and Palestine, but rather Ideological clashes in objectives.[17] (17)Conflict is dominated by a failure to agree on terms of governance within Palestine, as stands from August, the territories are split into two different factions: The Hamas controlled Gaza Strip and the Fatah controlled West Bank. Religion, in this instance is not a factor which divides Fatah and Hamas; rather it is once, which despite ideological differences could lead to a unity based upon similar religious belief.[18] (17) Both Hamas and Fatah are, like most Palestinians followers of the Sunni branch of Islam, they both included in their original charters a call for “the end of the Zionist presence”,[19] (18) Fatah supports the two state solution which would lead to the creation of an Israeli state and a Palestinian state comprising of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and some of Jerusalem.[20] (18) The faction claims to be against armed resistance; however the group still maintains association with armed militant factions. Hamas’s Islamic credo states ignores peaceful alternatives to the conflict claiming that any move towards international peace negotiations and conferences which discuss peaceful coexistence with Israel would be a mark against Islam. Hamas’s Loyalty towards Islam is reflected in their founding document, Article 6 of their charter which states: “The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian Movement which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam, its way of life and strives to maintain the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”[21] (19) this view is less moderate than Fatah; however their religious beliefs are what units them, what divides them is however their territorial claims over Jerusalem. Hamas made it clear their objective is to “obliterate Israel” and requests the creation of a Palestinian state which encompasses the whole of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the whole of Jerusalem.[22] (19) Since, Hamas have become more moderate in their views, claiming that they were open to a long term truce with Israel, if the pre 1967 lines are reinstated and Israel allows the a Palestinian state to emerge. Prospects that these two groups could work together as a sole governing body have been explored in February 2007, when a unity government, in Mecca, under the sponsorship of Saudi Arabian King Abdullah this lead to factional fighting which Culminated in the Battle of Gaza.[23] (19) This unity was based on religion these factions can come together in a unity based on religious similarities, only if these similarities can outweigh ideological differences which could lead to a possible solution to the internal factional violence which exists within the Gaza.
Creating a Moderate Hamas
This kind of solution where a joint Palestinian government is created on the grounds of similarities of religion can only be created if Hamas moderate their political stance which would remove the ideological difference between the factional groups. Political optimists argue that Hamas’s involvement in Palestinian politics would help them to moderate their political stance in order to maximize votes, however the prospects remain bleak, their use of violence and political aggression against Israel, their private army, “Al-Qassam Brigade”[24] (20) and engagement with terrorist groups such as Islamic Jihad movement engaging in attacks against Israel involving launching of rockets from the Gaza into Israel, only serve to heighten tension and remove the chances for a peaceful coexistence.[25] (20) Hamas has been declared in January, 2006, to be on the list of terrorist groups by the United States, Israel and the EU.[26] (21)This increases international sentiment that Hamas is a dangerous destructive terrorist group which cannot be moderated by any means. There is difficulty engaging with Hamas on an international level, however, regional engagement with Hamas, using religion as a means, could be an option which could increase prospects for resolution and decrease Hamas’s use of political violence.[27] (21)
Points of Friction: Hindrances to the conflict
Internal
Palestinian factions in the Gaza engaging in/ with terrorist organizations/activities are a major hindrance to finding a peaceful solution in to the conflict in the Gaza. A recent meeting between Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for Palestinian Liberation met to discuss the prospects for inter-Palestinian reconciliation. Hamas spokesperson articulated that the meeting was the first of a series of talks which would lead to the removal of the blockade and Israeli aggression.[28] (19) The aggression which exists within Palestine was reported to have taken measures to temporarily cease launching rockets at Israel, measure said to have been taken by Islamic Jihadist movement.[29] (19)This was in favor of improving the situation in Gaza; however the leaders of terrorist groups carrying out the attacks against Israel maintained the view that so long as there is Israeli aggression, such acts of terrorism remains a Palestinian right. It is a shared view amongst radical Palestinian terrorist factions that “popular resistance” in the form of riots is not as effective as terrorism. While this view remains the anti-Israeli sentiment and hatred intensifies making a resolution harder to come by.[30] (18) No amount of meetings and ceasefires would change such a view, it would only be removed if Israeli aggression would stop and while neither side would be wiling to give up their stance and aggression the problem will only continue to escalate.
Regional
Defense analysts have warned that there is a danger of war with Israel due to joint militant alliance between Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza being supplied with ordinance from Iran; this could only serve to intensify the conflict within the Gaza.[31] (22) The military capabilities of Hamas had increased dramatically since Iran made it a major part of their military strategy to restore Hamas’s arsenal enabling them to target Israel from Lebanon and the Gaza. In order to do so, Iran is capitalizing on the anti-Israeli sentiment which exists most strongly within Hamas in the Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.[32] (22) This is contributing to the advancement of the Al-Qassam’s military capabilities which would lead to a more destructive and dangerous war with Israel, or civil war between the different political factions within the Gaza.[33] (22) There is also fears that the war would trigger Al-Qaeda networks in the Gaza which could gain the same military strength as the “Jihadist strongholds”[34] (22) in Yemen. The increasing terrorist networks across the Middle East and their connections with Hamas and Al-Qaeda networks across the Gaza Strip and Iran’s designs on Israel are contributing not to a peaceful resolution but creating new facets in conflict of already complex nature. The problem of terrorist networks around the world is a problem the globalised world faces and rears its head in most conflicts. Its prevalence in the Gaza Conflict lies in Hamas, the leading political faction being labeled a terrorist organization by members of the international community. So long as they are perceived as a threat, they will continue to act as one, hindering any possible solution to the Gaza Conflict.
The Role of the Media in contributing to a solution
The Media’s role in the conflict has had both a negative and positive influence on public opinion, international news coverage had presented mainly the destruction of the conflict in the interests of ratings and attracting readers and viewers, however the main positive influence the media has comes from within Palestine and Israel, in the form of Palestinian media outlet MIFTAH and Israeli Keshev.[35] (23) Palestinian media narrative emphasizes the occupation, painting a negative image of Israel as the aggressor in the conflict, responsible for the violence. The Israeli media emphasizes the violent terrorist foundations of the Palestinian conduct and their unwillingness to try and come to a solution.[36] (24) These patterns of media coverage increase mutual suspicion, which increases the tension between both sides, making a solution harder to come by. The recognition of the media’s influence has lead to the creation of the Palestinian MIFTAH and Israeli Keshev, both working together to create a joint media alliance which changes the way conflict is depicted on both sides.[37] (24) Instead of creating a version of the conflict which benefits their sides argument and thus instills negative images of the other side in civilians the organization, acknowledges the power of the media in influencing perception, which influences the outcome.[38] (24) The organizations work with the vision that fair, comprehensive coverage would result in a better reality in the outcome of the conflict. This is a positive step towards eradicating anti-Israeli/ anti-Palestinian propaganda within the media; however the sentiment still exists in other areas of Palestinian and Israeli life. The only way such hatred can be removed is if people were educated in light of peace, not hatred, the media is appealing to a wide audience and has the power to mould perception; however, children in institutions of education are being forced fed the same anti-Israeli/ anti-Palestinian propaganda as some media institutions thrive off. Once this perception is removed, the people views become less antagonistic and provided fair representation exists they have the power through public to influence the leaders who hold the ability to create the necessary change for a resolution to become feasible.
A GAZA-ISRAEL RESOLUTION?
Given the current state of negotiations and the various factors contributing to the tensions between Israel and Palestine, it is unlikely that a resolution will be found any time in, at least, the very near future. The above factors underline some of the issues and views that do and could potentially hinder the peace process.
It appears that for peace to be negotiated, both states need to be able to feel like they are not being violated by the other and that their security is not under threat. By confronting the above issues, Israel and the Palestinians of the Gaza will be able look towards developing a future environment of greater trust, and in doing so, work towards attaining a more peaceful relationship.
References
(see the comments I made in the discussion tab re references and how to use the wikipedia style footnote things :) josh)
17. http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=172437
18. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-04/01/c_13232908.htm
19. http://www.mitfah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=14207&CategoryId=4
20. Michael Herzog, ‘The Hamas Conundrum’, Foreign Affairs, February 2010, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65952/michael-herzog/the-hamas-conundrum.
21. Michael Herzog, ‘Can Hamas be Tamed?’ Foreign Affairs, February 2010,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61512/michael-herzog/can-hamas-be-tamed
22.http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/dti/2010/03/01/DT_03_01_2010_p41-204703.xml